DOCSLIB.ORG

Revitalizing the U.S. National Security Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revitalizing the U.S. National Security Strategy James Goldgeier and Jeremi Suri Revitalizing the U.S. National Security Strategy Strategy is an act of imagination. That is the fundamental insight from Carl von Clausewitz, the nineteenth-century Prussian theorist who in his classic book, On War, wrote: “…if the whole is to be vividly present to the mind, imprinted like a picture, like a map, upon the brain, without fading or blurring in detail, it can only be achieved by the mental gift that we call imagination … If imagination is entirely lacking it would be difficult to combine details into a clear, coherent image.”1 Strategic planning is important because it forces a fragmented policy bureauc- racy to think imaginatively about how the world works and what their nation can achieve. Strategic planning creates space for leaders to articulate priorities and match diverse capabilities to overarching goals. When done well, it allows power- ful governments to become forward-looking international agenda-setters, avoiding the all-too-frequent tendency to react to emerging crises in piecemeal fashion. Strategic planning sees order and opportunity in the chaos and threats of daily politics. Clausewitz famously called this the “inward eye” (coup d’oeil) of leadership. Imagination does not necessarily correlate positively with power; in fact, the two attributes might have an inverse relationship in the modern world. The history of the last quarter-century shows that the United States has had trouble imagining how to use its power to promote order in an increasingly complex James Goldgeier is Dean of the School of International Service at American University. He has authored or co-authored four books, including America Between the Wars: From 11/9 to 9/11 (Public Affairs, 2008), co-authored with Derek Chollet. Follow him on Twitter @JimGoldgeier. Jeremi Suri is the Mack Brown Distinguished Chair for Leadership in Global Affairs and Professor of History and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He is the author and editor of seven books, most recently The Power of the Past: History and Statecraft, co-edited with Hal Brands (Brookings Institution, 2015). Follow him on Twitter @jeremisuri. Copyright © 2016 The Elliott School of International Affairs The Washington Quarterly • 38:4 pp. 35–55 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2015.1125828 THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY ▪ WINTER 2016 35 James Goldgeier and Jeremi Suri international system. U.S. policymakers have displayed a repeated tendency to react (and overreact) to problems, rather than create enduring solutions. That is not because of absent capabilities or insufficient ambition. Quite the contrary, unprecedented military tools (including precision unmanned weapons) and uni- versal claims (“ending tyranny in our world”)2 have encouraged frenetic action against emerging threats around the globe. Since the end of the Cold War, the geographic range of U.S. force deployments has increased, as have the demands upon those forces. The United States is fighting terrorism in countless failed states and seeks to rescue individual hostages held beyond the reach of legitimate local authorities. In addition to protecting its own citizens, the United States has sent its military across the globe to save other populations under attack. We are ubiquitous global enforcers and humanitarians, at the same time. U.S. hyper-reactivity to threats represents the opposite of strategic planning. The actions of adversaries—large and small—dictate the immediate priorities for our national resources and attention. Our leaders operate in perpetual crisis mode, fearful of looking passive in the face of the next international incident. Crisis reaction encourages an emphasis on immediate responses and a narrowing of analysis to address the most pressing problems of the day. A broader perspective on the priorities of the nation is lost as our policymakers rush to take out another group of terrorists or debate how to counter another incursion in Ukraine, Syria, or the South China Sea. The range of our capabilities enables our reactivity, and the pressure of our media helps motivate it further. It is not necessarily the best way to promote our national interests. This is not a new problem. However in earlier times, U.S. leaders responded with imaginative new organizational solutions—rather than a direct military response—to support broader strategic goals. In the decade after WWII, for example, Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower created a permanent strategic planning and implementation structure, including the National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both formed by the National Security Act of 1947. Secretary of State George Marshall created the Policy Planning Staff within the State Department at about the same time, first chaired by George Kennan. With the end of the Cold War and the recognition that globalization was produ- cing fundamental changes in world affairs, President Bill Clinton formed the National Economic Council, designed to build synergies between national security and economic decision-making. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush and Congress created a new Director of National Intel- ligence to integrate all of the U.S. intelligence agencies. The President and Con- gress also empowered a new executive agency, the Department of Homeland Security, to improve coordination among intelligence, military, transportation, immigration, and customs offices protecting U.S. territory. 36 THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY ▪ WINTER 2016 Revitalizing the U.S. National Security Strategy All of these organizational changes responded to a new international environ- ment by integrating diverse government actors. The reforms sought to bring a frag- mented bureaucracy together to collaborate on setting priorities, allocating resources, and imagining the future for U.S. foreign policy. When they worked well, as historian Hal Brands has recently shown, these new agencies added enor- mous value by giving different parts of government clear definitions of national interests, including overriding policy goals. They also defined (sometimes by default) the areas and issues that were not government priorities, and therefore deserved fewer resources. When these organizations did not work well, as they often have not, they engaged in log-rolling, multiplying parallel commitments for the U.S. government to please every interest and 3 spread U.S. resources thin. ince the start of Since the start of the 21st century, spreading S resources thin has become the norm, as Washington the 21st century, has taken on unprecedented peacetime commitments spreading resources in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, where it has achieved very little. In other regions— thin has become the particularly in East Asia—the United States has norm. given contradictory signals of “pivoting” with more force and simultaneously showing a nagging reluc- tance to back its claims with real muscle. Without clear strategic guidance, con- fusion in Washington has contributed to growing uncertainty about U.S. priorities among its allies and adversaries. A cacophony of domestic political voices only compounds this problem, which the presidential campaign season will likely exacerbate. Confusion and uncertainty have also surrounded the recent nuclear agreement the United States and its international partners signed with Iran. While postpon- ing Iranian nuclear ambitions for fifteen years is a significant achievement for the Obama administration, ambiguity persists regarding the broader strategic goals the United States is pursuing in the Middle East. Does the administration seek a U.S.– Iranian détente, shifting attention away from its traditional partners, Saudi Arabia and Israel? Or does the administration value short-term nuclear non-proliferation efforts above longer-term regional concerns? Beyond the inevitable political posturing around Iran and other issues, it is pre- cisely during this campaign season that candidates and their advisers must begin to think about future U.S. strategy, and how a clear statement can guide policymak- ing in a new administration after January 2017. Without a clear strategy statement, the next president will find it difficult to align U.S. capabilities behind core national interests. Without a clear strategy statement, the next president will fail to set a foreign policy course for his/her new administration that leverages U.S. resources and allies, escaping the damaging tendency to do a little everywhere THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY ▪ WINTER 2016 37 James Goldgeier and Jeremi Suri and seek to stamp out fires wherever they burn. The new president should be a strategic leader, not a global first responder. The 2015 National Security Strategy The most recent National Security Strategy (or NSS) document, released after aseriesofdelaysbytheObamaadministrationinFebruary2015,highlightsthe problems and potential for strategic planning that our next president would be wise to understand. The thirty-page document covers a wide range of topics from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to cyber-security, climate change, economics, and civil society. It is almost encyclopedic in its brief survey of numerous challenges; it avoids identifying the most and least important.4 Divided into four sections on “security,”“prosperity,”“values,” and “inter- national order,” the 2015 NSS makes a case for U.S. multilateral leadership in the world, with an overriding emphasis on non-military forms of power. The document calls
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NSC–68 Recognized the Massive Changes in the Postwar World and Set the Stage for a New Kind of Peacetime Force
    NSC–68 recognized the massive changes in the postwar world and set the stage for a new kind of peacetime force. The Blueprint for Cold War Defense By Herman S. Wolk HE years between the end of World War II in 1945 and the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 produced a series of startling international events that forced great responsibility upon the Air Force and resulted, 50 years ago, in a full-scale reassessment of US national security policy. The result of this review was a classified National Security Council document known Tas NSC-68. It had not been implemented when war broke out in Korea. Indeed, it had not yet even been formally approved. However, NSC-68 marked a milestone in military planning and set the stage for what was to become an enormous US military buildup to counter Communist aggression worldwide. The creation of Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe and the blockade of Berlin by the Soviet Union in 1948 led to a decision (NSC-20) by President Harry S. Truman to emphasize atomic strategic deterrence. The same events also led to the April 1949 formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Air Force, meanwhile, also reacted to European events. In October 1948, the Secretary of the Air Force, Stuart Symington, and the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, dispatched Lt. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay to Offutt AFB, Neb. LeMay’s mission: Revitalize Strategic Air Command and establish it as the major instrument of deterrence and a pillar of US foreign policy.
    [Show full text]
  • NSC 68: America's Cold War Blueprint
    NSC 68: America’s Cold War Blueprint Advisor: Philip Brenner, Professor, School of International Service, American University © 2015 National Humanities Center Framing Question Why did the United States believe it had a responsibility to engage the Soviet Union in a cold war, and why was that war a global conflict? Understanding Between the end of World War II and 1950 American policy makers debated how to interpret the Soviet Union’s takeover of countries in eastern Europe and what to do about it. Eventually, they concluded that the Soviet Union sought to eliminate freedom throughout the globe and bring nation after nation under its rule. They decided that the United States, as the world’s chief proponent of democracy, should stop Soviet expansion and defend freedom wherever it was threatened for moral reasons and to ensure world peace through American strength and dominance. Text “ A Report to the National Security Council by the Executive Secretary on United States Objectives and Programs for National Security, April 14, 1950” (excerpts) Background Even during World War II, when the United States and the Soviet Union were allied against Nazi Germany, relations between the two nations were characterized by tension and distrust. When peace came in 1945, relations did not improve. In fact, they grew worse. The former allies disagreed on many issues, but the chief source of conflict was the question of what to do about defeated Germany and Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe. The Soviets demanded that Germany make huge payments to repair the damage it did to their country. To insure that it would never attack them again, they insisted that Germany — which had been divided into American, British, French, and Soviet occupation zones — be stripped of its ability to make war.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cold War
    The American Yawp Chapter 25 – The Cold War Quiz 1. What was the first military action taken by the United States against international communism? a. American soldiers fought against the Red Army during the Russian civil war b. American soldiers fought isolated battles against the Soviet Union during World War II c. The Berlin Airlift d. The Korean War 2. Greece and Turkey were early flashpoints in the Cold War. How did the United States respond to unrest in Greece and Turkey in 1947? a. The United States established long range missiles in these nations, capable of reaching Moscow b. The United States sent military advisers to train anti-communist forces in both countries c. The United States actively intervened in Greece but not in Turkey d. The United States sent $400 million to both nations to be used in resisting communism 3. What was the purpose of the Marshall Plan? a. Rebuild Western Europe b. Create new markets for American goods c. Generate support for Capitalist democracies d. All of the above 4. When was the Atlantic Charter issued? a. After World War I b. Before the United States entered World War II c. After World War II d. When the Soviet Union invaded Korea 5. What was the message of NSC-68? a. A warning that the idea of the domino theory may represent a slippery slope commitment that would result in dozens of new wars b. An economic argument for isolationism c. A call for a tripling of the annual defense budget for the purpose of stopping communism d.
    [Show full text]
  • Containment Doctrine and the 21St Century at the End of World War II
    Containment Doctrine and the 21st Century At the end of World War II, the political landscape of the globe had been drastically altered even compared to just seven years prior. Only the U.S. emerged from the conflict in a position of stability and prosperity. History taught the average American that war was a disruption of usual life that would eventually end bringing things back to the way they were before. This belief had held true following the conclusion of the First World War for nearly twenty years. This fantasy would be quickly proven wrong following the Soviet disagreements over implementation of the Marshall Plan and their annexation of several Eastern European countries in the late 1940’s. It was around this time that public debate in America centered on how the U.S. could best respond to the Soviet advances and to protect its post-war supremacy. In 1946, American diplomat George Kennan authored what would come to be known as the Long Telegram. In it, he outlined his perception of the Soviet mission and offered up his recommended course of action, Containment. This strategy provided the blueprint for what would become the American foreign policy until the unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980’s. While the doctrine of “Containment” provided every post-war President with an uncompromising focus on the end goal of victory over the Soviet in the arenas of Geo-Strategy, International Diplomacy, and Economic Policy, it often did so at the expense of American ideological values. Kennan’s strategy of containment fell between the two extremes of possible policy.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 the Impact of NSC-68 on American Foreign Policy During the Cold War
    Browne The Impact of NSC-68 on American Foreign Policy During the Cold War TAO BROWNE Following the end of World War II, the strenuous relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which had arisen due to the urgent need to counter the Nazi German threat during WWII, disintegrated and hostilities between the US and USSR erupted. The resulting post-WWII international order constituted a bipolar system, which was characterized by the establishment of the two superpowers of the capitalist USA and the communist USSR. This international order pitted the two superpowers against one another and launched the global competition for power and prestige, which would persist until the collapse of the USSR in December 1991, and the ensuing conclusion of the Cold War. This competition for global supremacy produces the question: what guided American foreign policy throughout the Cold War? This paper examines the policies and recommendations contained within the National Security Report 68 (NSC-68) and analyses how this document constituted the guiding framework for the US’ foreign policy decisions throughout the Cold War. To demonstrate the connection between NSC-68 and American foreign policy in the Cold War, the paper begins by examining the content within NSC-68 and then proceeds to apply NSC-68’s policies and recommendations to the decisions that America made during the Cold War, which include: the massive buildup of the US’s military, the pursuit of containment, the development of the thermonuclear bomb, and finally the decision to enter Vietnam. Throughout these analyses, the paper asserts that the policies within NSC-68 constituted the principal guiding force behind American foreign policy decisions throughout the Cold War, regardless of the Party or President in power.
    [Show full text]
  • Geostrategic Studies
    IR6602: Geostrategic Studies (W-E) Term 5, 2019: May 28 – July 28, 2019 3 Credit Hours Location: Osan Air Base, Education Center Class Meeting Times: 0900-1800, June 1-2, June 22-23 Instructor: Clifton W. Sherrill Office: Kadena, Japan (Education Bldg. Rm. 220A) Office Phone: DSN 634-5539 E-mail: [email protected] Office Hours: By appointment Website: http://spectrum.troy.edu/csherrill Course Description An examination of the political, military, economic and cultural effects of geography in historical and contemporary terms: specific emphasis is placed on the role of geography in the formulation of military/political policy in land power, sea power, air power, and outer space. Comprehensive geopolitical theories will be employed as analytical tools in the course. Course Objectives Upon completion of this course, students should have an understanding of the influence of geography on national strategy, as expressed in military, economic, and diplomatic policies. This includes an understanding of both physical and cultural geography and an appreciation of the relevance of different natural features on international political behavior. Required Texts • Robert D. Kaplan, The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us about Coming Conflicts and the Battle against Fate (New York, NY: Random House, 2013). ISBN: 9780812982220 • Henry Kissinger, World Order (New York, NY: Random House, 2014). ISBN: 9780143127710 • Tim Marshall, Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps that Explain Everything About the World (New York, NY: Scribner, 2015). ISBN: 9781501121470 Additional assigned readings will be available electronically through the TROY library Nature of Graduate Work “Graduate level work differs appreciably from that of undergraduate programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Why America's Grand Strategy Has Not Changed
    Why America’s Grand Strategy Has Not Changed Why America’s Grand Patrick Porter Strategy Has Not Changed Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment Why has U.S. grand strategy persisted since the end of the Cold War? If grand strategy is the long- term orchestration of power and commitments to secure oneself in a world where war is possible, the United States’ way of pursuing security has been re- markably stable.1 Long before the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States formed a grand strategy of “primacy,” often coined as “leadership.”2 This strategy was interrupted only occasionally. By the 1960s, it had set the parame- ters for Washington’s foreign policy debate.3 The strategy has four interlock- ing parts: to be militarily preponderant; to reassure and contain allies; to integrate other states into U.S.-designed institutions and markets; and to inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons.4 These fundamental security commit- ments have proven hard to change, even amid shocks. Patrick Porter is Professor of International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham. The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers and to Stephane Baele, Tarak Barkawi, Gregorio Bettiza, David Blagden, Sergio Catignani, Peter Feaver, Francis Gavin, Jonathan Golub, Ryan Grauer, Ted Hopf, Burak Kadercan, Michael Lind, Beverley Loke, Jason Reiºer, Robert Saunders, Catarina Thomson, and Hugh White. 1. See Barry R. Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the World Wars (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984), p. 13. 2. For accounts of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • NSC 68: United States Objectives and Programs for National Security
    NSC 68: United States Objectives and Programs for National Security (April 14, 1950) A Report to the President Pursuant to the President's Directive of January 31, 1950 TOP SECRET [Washington,] April 7, 1950 Contents Terms of Reference Analysis I. Background of the Present World Crisis II. The Fundamental Purpose of the United States III. The Fundamental Design of the Kremlin IV. The Underlying Conflict in the Realm of Ideas and Values Between the U.S. Purpose and the Kremlin Design Nature of the Conflict Objectives Means V. Soviet Intentions and Capabilities – Actual and Potential VI. U.S. Intentions and Capabilities – Actual and Potential VII. Present Risks VIII. Atomic Armaments A. Military Evaluation of U.S. and U.S.S.R. Atomic Capabilities B. Stockpiling and Use of Atomic Weapons C. International Control of Atomic Energy IX. Possible Courses of Action Introduction The Role of Negotiation A. The First Course: Continuation of Current Policies, with Current and Currently Projected Programs for Carrying Out These Projects B. The Second Course: Isolation C. The Third Course: War D. The Remaining Course of Action: A Rapid Build-up of Political, Economic, and Military Strength in the Free World Conclusions Recommendations TERMS OF REFERENCE The following report is submitted in response to the President's directive of January 31 which reads: That the President direct the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense to undertake a reexamination of our objectives in peace and war and of the effect of these objectives on our strategic plans, in the light of the probable fission bomb capability and possible thermonuclear bomb capability of the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • NSC-68 and COLD WAR ROOTS of the 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY Gordon R
    BY ‘ANY MEASURES’ NECESSARY: NSC-68 AND COLD WAR ROOTS OF THE 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY Gordon R. Mitchell and Robert P. Newman University of Pittsburgh Associate Professor and Emeritus Professor Department of Communications 2006-5 About the Matthew B. Ridgway Center The Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies at the University of Pittsburgh is dedicated to producing original and impartial analysis that informs policymakers who must confront diverse challenges to international and human security. Center programs address a range of security concerns – from the spread of terrorism and technologies of mass destruction to genocide, failed states, and the abuse of human rights in repressive regimes. The Ridgway Center is affiliated with the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs (GSPIA) and the University Center for International Studies (UCIS), both at the University of Pittsburgh. This working paper is one of several outcomes of the Ridgway Working Group on Preemptive and Preventive Military Intervention, chaired by Gordon R. Mitchell. BY ‘ANY MEASURES’ NECESSARY: NSC-68 AND COLD WAR ROOTS OF THE 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY Gordon R. Mitchell and Robert P. Newman One prominent venue for public rollout of the Bush administration’s 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS 2002) was U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda. The preface of that journal’s December 2002 issue begins with two quotations from President George W. Bush’s letter transmitting NSS 2002 to Congress. It then proceeds to frame the historical significance of the president’s words: With those words President Bush submitted his National Security Strategy (NSS) to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconceptualizing National Security and the Creation of an American Garrison State
    Macalester College DigitalCommons@Macalester College Political Science Honors Projects Political Science Department Spring 5-6-2014 No more 9/11s: Reconceptualizing national security and the creation of an American garrison state. Jacob M. Waxman Macalester College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/poli_honors Part of the American Politics Commons, Defense and Security Studies Commons, and the Social Influence and Political Communication Commons Recommended Citation Waxman, Jacob M., "No more 9/11s: Reconceptualizing national security and the creation of an American garrison state." (2014). Political Science Honors Projects. Paper 45. http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/poli_honors/45 This Honors Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Political Science Department at DigitalCommons@Macalester College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Macalester College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. No more 9/11s: Reconceptualizing national security and the creation of an American garrison state. By Jacob M. Waxman Honors Project Advisor: Dr. Andrew Latham, Political Science May 6, 2014 This page intentionally left blank. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements.…………………………………………….……………………….…….5 List of Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………..…..6 Introduction………….……………………………………………………………………...…7 Chapter 1: Literature review..……………… …………………………………………….10 1.1 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Origins of the Cold War Development of the Cold War
    Origins of the Cold War Development of the Cold War The Cold War (1945-91) was one of perception where neither side fully understood the intentions and ambitions of the other. This led to mistrust and military build-ups. United States U.S. thought that Soviet expansion would continue and spread throughout the world. They saw the Soviet Union as a threat to their way of life; especially after the Soviet Union gained control of Eastern Europe. Development of the Cold War Soviet Union They felt that they had won World War II. They had sacrificed the most (25 million vs. 300,000 total dead) and deserved the “spoils of war.” They had lost land after WWI because they left the winning side; now they wanted to gain land because they had won. They wanted to economically raid Eastern Europe to recoup their expenses during the war. They saw the U.S. as a threat to their way of life; especially after the U.S. development of atomic weapons. Ideological Differences The USSR and the US were opposites in terms of ideology. The USSR was mostly a totalitarian, communist country, while the US was mostly a democratic, capitalist country Cold War Mobilization by the U.S. Alarmed Americans viewed the Soviet occupation of eastern European countries as part of a communist expansion, which threatened to extend to the rest of the world. In 1946, Winston Churchill gave a speech at Fulton College in Missouri in which he proclaimed that an “Iron Curtain” had fallen across Europe. In March 1947, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • NSC 68 and the Political Economy of the Early Cold War
    NSC 68 and the Political Economy of the Early Cold War CURT CARDWELL Drake University, Iowa .378B:DDC 534B97 B95B7 34B9727BCD/303DC475DDD:734B97B7 D7BC8C7333473D:DDC 534B97 B95B7D7BC :DDC B9 ,1 cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Tokyo, Mexico City Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, ny 10013-2473, usa www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/ 9780521197304 © Curt Cardwell 2011 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2011 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication data Cardwell, Curt. NSC 68 and the political economy of the early Cold War / Curt Cardwell. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-521-19730-4 (hardback) 1. United States – Foreign relations – 1945–1953. 2. United States – Foreign economic relations. 3. International economic relations – History – 20th century. 4. National security – United States – History – 20th century. 5. Cold War. I. Title. e744.c354 2011 973.91 – dc22 2011000634 isbn 978-0-521-19730-4 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. .378B:DDC 534B97 B95B7 34B9727BCD/303DC475DDD:734B97B7 D7BC8C7333473D:DDC 534B97 B95B7D7BC :DDC B9 ,1 NSC 68 and the Political Economy of the Early Cold War NSC 68 and the Political Economy of the Early Cold War reexamines the origins and implementation of NSC 68, the massive rearmament program that the United States embarked on beginning in the summer of 1950.
    [Show full text]